Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR256; [1992]195ITR810(Bom)
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 on March 30, 1989, and also have challenged the vires of rule 115(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The only point to be decided in this petition is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 1, while passing an order in revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, was right in holding that the amount of income received in foreign exchange by the assessee during the period from July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, should be converted into rupees on the basis of the exchange rates prevailing as on the last date of the previous accounting year i.e., June 30, 1983. In order to understand the aforesaid controversy, it is desirable to go through certain facts of this case. 3. The petitioners in this case are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners are exporting iron ore to foreign countries, mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-27-1992
Reported in : [1993]76CompCas1(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above company petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), with the following prayers : (a) to rectify the register of members of the first respondent-company be deleting the name of the third respondent with refgard to 775 shares standing in the name of the petitioner in the register of members ; (b) to enter the petioners's name in respect of the said 775 equity shares in the registered of members in the place of third respondent ; and (c) to direct the repondents herein to pay the costs of the petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be set out as follows : The first respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at No. 7-C, Alexandra Road, Tiruchirappalli. The second respondent is the wife of Mr. R.P. David Christian, Yercaud, Salem District. The third respondent is the son of Mr. R.P. David Christian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-13-1992
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In the course of hearing these Appeals it was pointed by the learned Government Advocate that I.A. under Order 41 Rule 27 was allowed earlier by this Court permitting the appellant to produce the additional evidence. This additional evidence is alleged to be a statement filed by the claimants dated 14th May 1986 whereunder the claimants stated that the market value of the acquired lands will be Rs, 50,000/- per acre (in one or two instances it is Rs. 35,000/- per acre). The Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7.53 ps. per square yard which comes to nearly Rs. 3,28,000/- per acre. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate, that the claimants are not entitled to seek any amount in excess of the amount claimed by them in response to Section 9 notice received by them. We do not express any opinion whether at this stags the said statement now filed before us should be relied upon because throughout the appellant has been contendi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Aug-25-1992
Reported in : (1995)82CompCas688
1. This application under Sections 111(4) and 111(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been filed by Dr.Jitendra Nath Saha and Smt. Bithika Sana (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") for rectification of the register of members of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the company") by declaration of certain allotment of shares as invalid and direction to distribute the resultant shares in accordance with law. This application was heard on July 27, 28, 1992, by a Bench constituted by Order No. 11/2/92-CLB(PB), dated June 5, 9, 1992, read with corrigendum dated July 15, 1992, of the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as "CLB").2. The third respondent is a private limited company incorporated on September 20, 1976, under the Act. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Shri Shyamal Mondal and Smt. Mira Mondal, who are husband and wife are the subscribers to the memorandum of association and also the first directors of the company. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-20-1992
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ234MP; 1993(0)MPLJ131
ORDER1. The controversy raised in this petition is whether an employee, whose services were terminated prior to July 30, 1976, i.e., prior to amendment of Section 62(i) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, the 'Act'), can institute the proceedings even after lapse of period of one year, the period prescribed for commencing the proceedings, without first approaching the Labour Court in the manner prescribed.2. Counsel beard.3. After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the bar of limitation imposed by M.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1976, does not apply to an employee, whose services were dispensed with prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance and who made an application for reinstatement after the Ordinance came into force, as before the incorporation of the period of limitation, no limitation was prescribed; therefore, the vested right of an employee to approach the Labour Court in the manner provided and during the time prescribed prior to July 30, 1976, cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-1992
Reported in : I(1993)DMC243
S.D. Jha, J.1. The appellant-State of M.P. through this appeal against acquittal, challenges judgment dated 29-2-88 delivered by II Additional Sessions Judge Dewas in Sections Trial No. 12 of 1985 (State v. Ashok and others) acquitting the respondents accused of charges under Sections 306, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.2. Accused Ashok is the son of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and accused No. 3 Sharda is mother of accused Ashok. Accused N01. 4, 5 and 6 namely Giru alias Girjesh, Kiran find Madhu alias Munni are sisters of accused Ashok and daughters of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and No. 3 Ms. Sharda. Prosecution case is that deceased Kamini alias Shobha daughter of Surendrakumer (P.W. 1) was married to accused Ashok, on 20-1-84. la the marriage two gold rings, one small almirahs and some utensils were given. According to the prosecution, accused Ashok and his parents and sisters used to harass Kamini laying that gold rings were less in weight and almirah was small. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-09-1992
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. The election petitioner was a candidate for 35-Abhayapuri North Constituency in the General Election held on 8th June, 1991 in pursuant to a notification issued by the Governor of Assam. 25-4-91 was fixed as last day for filing nomination and 27-4-91 was the date fixed for scrutiny. At the time of counting it was found that petitioner got 1,303 votes, the returned candidate namely respondent No. 2 got 22,311 votes. As the petitioner was defeated, the present election petition has been filed praying, inter alia, that the election of respondent No. 2 be declared void. I shall state the relevant facts stated in the election petition at the appropriate time. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed the present petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. read with Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 praying, inter alia, that the election petition may be dismissed/ rejected. 3. From the election petition it appears that the above constituency was a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-1992
Reported in : [1995]84CompCas932(Mad); (1993)IMLJ483
Mishra, J. 1. A private limited company carrying on business as exporters of various goods and claiming to have been appointed as the sole agent for export of switchgears by the defendant, a public limited company, by letter dated September 2, 1967, has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 by way of damages and for costs. A learned single judge of this court has dismissed the suit, holding that section 294(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956, operated as a bar to the maintainability of the suit, and that besides the force majeure clause in the agreement completely answered the suit claim of damages. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 2. The plaintiff's case has been that the defendants who are manufacturers of switchgear equipment, by its letter dated September 2, 1967, appointed the plaintiff as its sole agents for export of switchgears. The plaintiff was appointed as the sole agent to represent the defendant in the areas covered by the Middle East, Africa and South Eas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-28-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Ori59
B.N. Dash, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against a reversing judgment.2. Admittedly, Narayan Prasad Patnaik and Umasankar Patnaik (respondents 4 and 5 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) were the owners of the suit land measuring 68 decimals in plot No. 1653 under Khata No. 101 of village Iswarpal, Samil Kadelipal and they executed a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1971 (Ext. 1) for a consideration of Rupees 3,000/- in favour of Bela Bewa, the mother of the plaintiff-appellant Dulan Dal. Thereafter, they cancelled the said sale deed on 30-4-1973 by Ext. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of consideration and re-sold the suit land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 (Defendants 3 to 5) by a registered sale deed dated 4-2-1977 (Ext. 8). There is also no controversy that Bela Bewa died in 1976.3. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that before execution of the registered sale deed in favour of her mother, there was a written contract for sale of the suit land on 12-3-1971 between the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-1992
Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the Chairman of Airfreight Limited and claims to be the Director of 14 other Public Companies espousing the cause of litigants in Greater Bombay, by way of public interest litigation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdic-tion and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. 2. Apart from challenging the competency of the State Legislature as regards the impugned Act the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Notification dated 20th August 1991 -- Exh. B to the petition, issued by the State of Maharashtra is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. This petition raises pure questions of law relating to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. ...
Tag this Judgment!